| Evaluation area | Why it matters | What to look for |
|---|
| Data discovery and coverage | Organizations cannot protect data they cannot see, and sensitive data rarely stays in one environment | Discovery of regulated and business-critical data across SaaS, cloud, Microsoft 365, databases, on-premises file stores, and AI-adjacent sources |
| Classification depth and accuracy | Traditional rule-based classification might miss business-specific data, leaving critical exposure gaps | Context-based classification of structured and unstructured data, not just patterns, metadata, predefined templates, or fixed taxonomies |
| Data exposure risk | Teams must focus on the riskiest data exposures first | Identification of risky sharing, public access, misconfigurations, and over-permissioned users, groups, service accounts, and AI tools; one view that correlates sensitivity, ownership, share level, lineage, and last access |
| Over-permissioned access | Excess access for human and machine identities increases data exposure and insider risk | A clear view of users, groups, service accounts, and AI tools with excessive data access |
| Direct and delegated remediation | Exposure findings must lead to action and measurable risk reduction | Support for bulk admin actions, delegated data-owner review, deadlines, reminders, closure tracking, and audit history |
| Posture to prevention | DSPM should directly support data loss prevention (DLP), data access governance, and compliance | Direct connection of findings to DLP, access governance, and compliance workflows |
| AI data security | AI increases enterprise data risk | Detection of sensitive data used in model-training and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) workflows |
| Operational fit | Long-term success depends on deployment effort, integrations, and reporting | Deployment model, integrations, reporting, workflow ownership, and ongoing tuning |